If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm not one for jumping the gun with trying to identify bible personalities with folks in real-time and I used to hear this many years ago and pretty much shrugged it off as nonsense. But from his acceptance of gay marriage, climate change and aliens, to his call for a "new ecological and economic order," if there was ever a candidate for the false prophet that paves the way for the Beast of Rev, this guy takes the cake.

There was a Jew 2,000 years ago who was accused of threatening to destroy the Temple, of leading the people astray, of performing miracles by the power of satan, of profaning the Sabbath, and a few other things. He fits Deuteronomy 13 rather well. He was also accused of being a blasphemer.

STM that when the Founder of Christianity can so easily be dismissed as a false prophet, and a ton of other bad stuff, to identify Pope Francis as the Second Beast of Rev 13 carries no weight at all. What people who play these games seem always to forget, is that - if St John meant Rev to be a prediction of events in the far future - its fulfilment may, for all we know, not have begun. It may be thousands of years in the future.

People used to write commentaries deploring the unspeakable cruelties of the Woman of Rev 17, whom they identified with the Papacy. Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao came along. It's a bit difficult to identify the Papacy as Babylon the Great, "drunken on the blood of the prophet and saints", when three people come along whose drinking of blood makes the Papacy look like a temperance campaigner. The confidence with which the Papacy was treated as "Satan's masterpiece" (as a Scottish minister writing in the 1850s put it) before the 20th century looks very hollow when one takes into account the activities of those men.

Pope Francis does not do the antiChristian thing, and "den[y] that Christ has come in the flesh". Protestants need to take the fable of the Boy who cried "Wolf !" to heart, instead of rashly identifying figures they disapprove of with unlovely figures in Revelation. They have a perfect failure rate so far. By perpetuating this foolishness, they merely spread more nonsense, and make Christianity look even more silly than it already does.

There was a Jew 2,000 years ago who was accused of threatening to destroy the Temple, of leading the people astray, of performing miracles by the power of satan, of profaning the Sabbath, and a few other things. He fits Deuteronomy 13 rather well. He was also accused of being a blasphemer.

STM that when the Founder of Christianity can so easily be dismissed as a false prophet, and a ton of other bad stuff, to identify Pope Francis as the Second Beast of Rev 13 carries no weight at all. What people who play these games seem always to forget, is that - if St John meant Rev to be a prediction of events in the far future - its fulfilment may, for all we know, not have begun. It may be thousands of years in the future.

People used to write commentaries deploring the unspeakable cruelties of the Woman of Rev 17, whom they identified with the Papacy. Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao came along. It's a bit difficult to identify the Papacy as Babylon the Great, "drunken on the blood of the prophet and saints", when three people come along whose drinking of blood makes the Papacy look like a temperance campaigner. The confidence with which the Papacy was treated as "Satan's masterpiece" (as a Scottish minister writing in the 1850s put it) before the 20th century looks very hollow when one takes into account the activities of those men.

Pope Francis does not do the antiChristian thing, and "den[y] that Christ has come in the flesh". Protestants need to take the fable of the Boy who cried "Wolf !" to heart, instead of rashly identifying figures they disapprove of with unlovely figures in Revelation. They have a perfect failure rate so far. By perpetuating this foolishness, they merely spread more nonsense, and make Christianity look even more silly than it already does.

You do have a good point about denying Christ came in the flesh, and I've often wondered about that and what it means or how to apply it to futurism. I'm assuming John was speaking about the First Beast of Rev, not the second. Maybe there will be a point the pope changes views once the deception is fully revealed. After all, he is but an fallible man like us. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians attempting to identify the Beast of Rev, the Harlot, the False Prophet, the end times, etc. Obviously, the Lord knew this would be a problem, but he gave us specific signs anyway, so my guess is the importance of why he gave us signs outweighs the problem of historical misidentification. It keeps the church on its toes and alert. Specific date setting is when it indeed becomes a problem, but I think we all agree this is problem. The problem for you is trying to figure out why the New Testament is full of specific end time signs and why the Lord even told us to know when he's "at the door" if trying to identify the end times is such a dastardly task in your eyes. It's as if you're castigating God himself for giving us those instructions.

"Christianity looks even more silly than it already does." Interesting statement. So you think Christianity looks silly?

"Denying that Christ came in the flesh" was a dig at the Gnostics infiltrating Christianity, who claimed that Christ only looked like a man and only appeared to die on the cross because God can never be encased in mortal, corrupt flesh and can never die. The pope clearly has an antichrist spirit that denies the Son, however, since he says salvation is possible without Christ. He also says that gays and adulterers should be treated like normal churchgoers.

I agree. The problem with using John's criterion by which to judge "antichrist" is that we don't know what John meant, but can only guess. Was John denying that there is a single antichrist by using the term in a broader sense, or was he confirming a single antichrist and setting a specific criterion by which to identify the antichrist. If the former is true, did he change his view after his revelation of end times or does this letter come subsequent to his revelation? If the latter is true, which character in Rev is he referring to? Or is he referring to all the characters of Rev? This is why I never use the term antichrist anymore. I'm always very specific about which character in Rev I'm referring to. It's possible that the coming great deception won't outrightly dismiss Christianity, but will dismiss the literal nature of it and interpret it as more of spiritually symbolic religion. That's definitely the direction liberal Christianity is currently taking it now (in fact, there are so-called liberal Christians that even deny the resurrection occurred) and is easily the direction the pope can take it, whether this pope or some other subsequent pope. I believe the papacy will affirm whichever becomes the populous view, which will eventually be a liberal one, especially when the true church is diminished (either by apostasy or persecution or both).

People don't see miracles, unless they are open to doing so. They can always conceptualise them as something else - what we see depends (as C. S. Lewis pointed out) on where we are standing and on what sort of people we are. If these are true miracles, done by God through the Pope, then blessed be God for them. Miracles from God are miracles from God, no matter who the human agent may be. IMHO it would be beautifully fitting if miracles were worked though the Pope, since the ministry of Our Lord, to which the Pope has been seeking to conform his ministry, was marked by miracles. Then as now, miracles worked through Christians are signs of the Presence of the Kingdom of God.

Clearly most of us can't be bothered to learn the distinction between false prophet and antichrist, so how about for the sake of moving the thread forward, you just pretend that every time someone says "antichrist," they mean "false prophet," and respond to them accordingly?

If one accepts that the 666 in Rev 13 is the AC (a term not used in Rev), then the AC is the First Beast in Rev 13, just as the Second Beast in Rev 13 is the False Prophet.

B1 comes from the sea
B2 comes from the earth (which may mean the netherworld).

These beasts should not be confused with the Four Living Creatures of Rev 4.

You are jumping the gun here. The pope is, at last, helping bring the church up to date. I admire very much his efforts to overcome all forms of sexual oppression. Comparing teh pope with teh Anti-Christ, etc., is simply another example of an intolerant, bigoted fundamentalaistic ideology. Save that kind of rhetoric for your buddies in teh Bible Belt, where anyone over an eighth-grade education, back of the pews.

I didn't suggest the pope was the "antichrist." I was more specific.

Originally Posted by hoghead

Much depends on what you mean by the "true church." I grew up in a conservative environment, but I found it too restrictive and anti-intellectual. The reason I identify with liberal Christianity is that I like its openness. I very much respect its agenda: a healthy skepticism for tradition, emphasis on creativity, emphasis on personal experience over dogma, interreligious dialogue and mutual respect. As to particular uses, such as the Resurrection, I don't know where you got the idea that liberal Christians all deny that. I don't and I know plenty of theologians who don't either. Matter of fact, the Resurrection is a central tenet in the teachings of any one of a number of liberal-minded theologians I can think of, some of whom I know personally.
As to the "true church" notion: I find Christianity has never been a monolithic religion, just one way. It has always represented a rich plurality of diverse POV's which often do conflict. That may be difficult for some. However, I like it, I love it, I want some more of it. It means we re free, have choices. If one church doesn't work for you, try another. Different strokes for different folks, as the old cliché goes. The "right" church, the "true" church is the one that works for you. Not all Christians are on the right, nor should they be. For some, a very conservative, right-wing church is the way to go. But certainly not for all. It didn't even begin to meet my spiritual and intellectual needs. So I moved to the left, to a more liberal stance.

"True church" as in whatever Jesus meant by the "elect." That's one of the very few occasions he used that word, which tells me it was more than just an identification of the church in general.

Examination of what Pope Francis actually said will exonerate him. <snip>

.

Since when has examination of what the Pope has actually said been important?

A little bit of sarcasm here. Every time I read about some gaffe the Pope has said, some search or examination of what was actually said has little relationship to what the purported message is claimed. Francis is like a great Rorschach test, people read into his remarks what they want to. Iamgine if people took as much liberty in interpreting scripture the way they interpret the words of the Pope!